youngstown state universitypeople.ysu.edu/~jmartin/final/6945_final_paper_with_refle… · web...

Running Head: INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARD USE VS. PENCIL AND PAPER 1

Interactive White Board Technology vs. Traditional Pencil and Paper Instruction: Comparing Student Motivation and Performance

Janet Cadman

Jena Martin

Amy McCormick

Mandy Sinchak

EDTC 6945

Youngstown State University

January 8, 2012

INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARD USE VS. PENCIL AND PAPER 2

Table of Contents

Cover Sheet

Table of Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Literature Review

Research Design and Methodology

Findings and Conclusions

Recommendations and Implications

Lesson Plan

References

Appendices

Reflections

Transcripts of Communication

1

2

3

4

5

14

16

20

23

27

29

41

45


Abstract

Interactive White Boards (IWBs) are commonplace in education, yet little research or data exists

to justify their use. Reviewed literature lacked substantial studies, yet claimed more research was

necessary. Understanding the impact of IWBs on student motivation and learning is necessary to

ensure effective planning and lesson creation by teachers. Our interest was to compare student

motivation and learning between an IWB lesson and a traditional pencil and paper lesson.

Kindergarten students were selected for their innate curiosity of science and lack of literacy skills

that make teaching and evaluating scientific concepts difficult. Utilizing a non-equivalent group

design, one class learned to identify living and non-living things using the IWB while the second

used more traditional methods. Results indicate that students in the Non-IWB group

demonstrated more learning with no less motivation. Long-term studies covering multiple

science topics is needed to provide adequate data to support or reject these findings.


Introduction

The instructional setting in which this action research project was conducted is Holy

Family School, located in Poland, Ohio. The total enrollment for grades K-8 is 282 students.

There are also 19 full-time teachers, two part-time teachers, two secretaries, two full-time

preschool instructors and one principal. Ten of the 16 classrooms have the ActivBoards installed

in them and the other six classrooms will be receiving theirs by the end of next year.

The classroom where the research was conducted has two working computers for the

students to use and also has a main computer which is connected to the Promethean ActivBoard.

Mandy Sinchak is the only teacher who has the ActivBoard for Kindergarten usage. The students

sit at tables of four and they have the opportunity to use the board during their center time, along

with the other two computers in the classroom.

Two groups of Kindergarten students were used for the action research, 17 students in the

first group and 17 students in the second group. This makes for a total of 34 kindergarten

students that had the opportunity to participate in the study. There are seven girls and ten boys in

the first class and seven girls and ten boys in the other Kindergarten class. There are no special

needs students identified as of this point in the school year due to the fact that the school will not

be providing testing until the end of the year

The research question asked is “Does interactive white board technology promote more

student motivation (enjoyment) and improved post-test performance at the Kindergarten level

compared to a traditional pencil and paper instructional method?” This question was asked in

order to evaluate whether technology helps students to learn information more effectively than

the traditional method of using paper and pencil. There were two classes of students who were

part of this research, where they were learning the difference between living and nonliving

things. First the teacher started with an interview (Appendix D) to see where each classes

understanding of the material was. This interview was followed by a pretest (Appendix F), given


by the use of paper and pencil. After the pretests were evaluated, the lesson was taught. The first

class used a Promethean ActivBoard where they could go up and interactively move nonliving

items to one side of the board and living items to the other side of the board. The other class had

a series of pictures (Appendix G) where they had to write whether the pictured item was living or

nonliving. After the lesson was completed, a post-test (Appendix I) was administered by paper

and pencil to see which group was able to recognize more living and nonliving things. Finally,

the post evaluation (Appendix J and K) was given to see the students’ reaction to the lesson.

Literature Review

Interactive White Boards

Classrooms today look very different than they did just ten years ago. Not since the

personal computer entered the scene has a piece of technology made such a stir in the classroom.

This technology, of course, is the Interactive White Board (IWB). Released in 1991 (Teich,

2009), the IWB was “originally marketed to the business sector and used in boardrooms and

conference settings” (Preston & Mowbray, 2008, p. 50). An IWB essentially combines “a dry

erase whiteboard with an LCD projector and is usually mounted on a wall or floor stand” (Teich,

2009, para. 2). “Anything that can be done on a computer monitor, can be replicated on the

interactive white board” (Teich, 2009, para. 3). Once the computer monitor is projected onto the

board’s surface, the users can “control the computer with a pen, finger, or other device”

(Marzano, 2009, p. 80).

While the Interactive White Board is a fabulous way to present information to a group of

business people in suits, and they are able to control the mouse from the board, does that make it

a good educational tool? Potentially IWBs can be used in many other ways than simply

projecting images and allowing mouse control. With the board’s touch sensitive surface, students

can select links on the board to hear sounds, engage with multimedia activities, watch and

interact with simulations, capture text on the screen, and save notes for future use (Preston &

Mowbray, 2008). Teachers are able to create “interactive activities designed to suit any students’

specific learning needs in any context” (Murcia, 2008), using the many features of the IWB.


What is the Appeal of Interactive White Boards?

Arguments can be easily made to utilize Interactive White Boards in schools. If a

Superintendent stands in front of the School Board saying “Imagine taking a class on a photo

safari to Africa complete with embedded videos, animal sounds and mapping software” (Teich,

2009, para. 3), board members could undoubtedly envision a classroom of students gazing, in

awe, at the cheetahs and gazelles running across the IWB and imagine groups of students

operating the interactive features of the IWB to learn where those animals live and how they

sound. When software “can be interacted with at the board so it effectively becomes a port for

incorporating a range of multimedia resources such as written text, pictures, diagrams, photos,

video, and online websites” (Murcia, 2008, p. 17), how could anyone disagree? Despite the

glamour of the possibilities, IWB features obviously can provide useful educational tools for the

classroom.

Many schools do not have the luxury of having computer labs, classroom sets of iPads, or

netbooks for every student. Incorporating an IWB, though, “makes the one-computer classroom

a workable instructional model” (Teich, 2009, para. 3). If schools could purchase an IWB along

with the computer and projector, all students in a classroom could observe and participate in the

class in ways they were previously unable. Even if the IWB had to be in one grade-level or

content-area classroom where students changed rooms to use the technology, the impact of

buying several IWBs for a school building could reach every student.

Interactive White Boards also allow teachers to more easily address the diverse needs of

learners. “For example, one teacher effectively split the IWB into three screens; each was used to

develop a different comprehension level corresponding to students’ understanding (Miller &

Glover, 2002)” (Morgan, 2010, p. 3). Small group work on IWBs also provides “an

extraordinary opportunity to create classroom environments where students with different

learning styles can engage and learn from each other” (Teich, 2009, para. 10). Likewise, the IWB

can function as a learning station where students can review previous lessons and practice skills.


With these examples just scratching the surface, imagine the academic possibilities and

student achievements that could result from using Interactive White Boards. Witnessing student

excitement and eagerness to participate, at least at the elementary level, would most likely

impress the casual observer - especially parents. Research addresses parent desire for their

children to have access to an IWB. One study conducted in Australia focused on the

implementation of IWBs and the impact of administrators who were active in the execution.

Thus, they were monitoring how well the teachers embraced and implemented the IWBs in their

classroom. In one school where the “implementation was still ‘a work in progress’ . . . parents

were requesting that their children be included in classes using IWBs” (Winzenried & Lee, n.d.,

p. 7). Another study reported that “one parent was so impressed with the whiteboard that he

offered to buy one for the school so his child could use it” (Morgan, 2010, p. 3). As most

teachers have experienced, if the parents believe a tool will benefit the children they will figure

out a way to have that tool in the classroom.

The appeal of the IWB is obvious. Each member of our team has witnessed student

interest when experiencing the many features of the IWB, so we understand their appeal.

Promoting the need for technology becomes part of our responsibility, but we must be able to

justify the purchase of and incorporation of that technology in the classroom. While IWBs do

interest students, allow them to work collaboratively, and have differentiated learning

experiences, IWBs do not have a legitimate place in the classroom if true educational benefits

have not been proven. Along with teachers, schools and parents need to take the time to look

beyond the IWBs intriguing capabilities to examine and determine their benefits.

Interactive White Boards Do Not Perform Magic

When observing the eagerness of students to participate in IWB lessons, student

motivation seems to be a strong benefit of the IWB. However, it “is important to differentiate

that increased motivation in learning with technology does not necessarily mean that motivation

is directed towards instructional content” (Verenikina, Wrona, Jones, & Kervin, 2010, p. 2606).

Students may simply like the activity but not focus on the content within the lesson. Most


teachers have experienced this in their classroom, whether utilizing an IWB or not. Students may

embrace an activity and appear to have grasped the concept, only to be unable to explain why the

activity was utilized or what caused the results. Students had fun, but teachers are left with an

ugly feeling of defeat. According to Verenikina et al. (2010), “the IWB is effective in gaining

initial student attention, however with reference to long-term motivation, the research tends to

reassert the central role of the teacher in engaging students with lesson content and in fostering

deep knowledge (Robertson, 2007)” (p. 2606). So, while the IWB may help teachers gain

students’ attention, teachers must realize that they may have to work even harder to get the

students to focus on lesson content.

Even though IWBs offer exciting possibilities, they are not without their concerns.

Researchers and teachers have observed that simply introducing an IWB into a classroom does

not instantly transform the teaching and learning that occurs. In fact, IWBs may even reinforce

more traditional styles of teaching (Kershner, Mercer, Warwick, & Staarman, 2010). According

to Chris Dede, an education professor at Harvard University, “whiteboards are popular precisely

because companies designed them to suit the old instructional style with which teachers are most

comfortable” (McCrummen, 2011, para. 19). Similar arguments have been made that the IWB

just allows teachers to “create digitized versions of old lessons” (McCrummen, 2011, para. 18),

and that they “are as useful as a chalkboard” (McCrummen, 2011, para. 10). It is doubtful that a

school district intends for the IWB to reinforce traditional teaching methods. Most likely they

expect modified teaching methods and new lessons to be created to use the IWB to its potential.

Other issues associated with IWB use include their high cost, challenges related to

professional development for teachers, and purchasing them as a result of their popularity.

(Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, & Swan, 2010, p. 496). Teachers, even if they have received

initial training, must continue to receive support to maximize the potential of the IWB. Help will

be needed, despite the time and cost, with finding appropriate software and differentiation

techniques (Morgan, 2010, p. 5). Whether the reason is a lack of training, support, or teacher


motivation, even “though these technologies may already be available in many classrooms, they

are often underutilized” (Dickerson & Winslow, 2011, p. 1).

Why Study Interactive White Boards?

Today’s children are growing up surrounded with technology from the moment they are

born, which must be taken into consideration in the classroom. “Research shows that traditional

methods of teaching can no longer be utilized to capture the interest of children who are being

reared during the rapid growth of the computer age” (Harvey-Woodall, 2009, p. 3). Teachers,

new or experienced, must be willing and open to integrating technology into their classroom.

“The shift of learning has gone from teaching isolated skills and information to teaching students

to solve complex problems” in a variety of ways (Harvey-Woodall, 2009, p. 7), beginning as

early as kindergarten. Interactive White Boards are a popular tool used to fulfill this need. Many

new teachers still display traditional teaching methods despite their experiences with technology.

By studying effects of IWB lessons, teachers could use the data to drive the creation of their

teaching methods and new materials.

Decision makers anticipate that the IWB will increase student motivation, improve

communication and collaboration, and boost student achievement. Everyone involved, however,

needs “to be aware that relatively little research has been done on the interactive whiteboard

(Jones, 2004; Marzano, 2009), and that some of the existing research on the value of IWBs is

conflicting” (Morgan, 2010, p. 5).

Before a district makes a considerable investment in IWBs, research needs to be

conducted to establish if a link exists between the use of IWBs to deliver curriculum and an

improvement in students’ attitudes and interest (Hall, 2011, p. 2). Not only should student

attitude and interest be considered, but also how teaching and learning occurs. Some research has

focused on the potential of IWBs “to improve the quality of teaching and learning processes by

enhancing levels of interaction, communication and collaboration. Whether these claims have


been substantiated has not yet been fully investigated” (Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, &

Swan, 2010, p. 494).

Finally, even if students are interested and the teaching and learning processes have been

improved, what about the actual learning of the content? “Although many teachers have

enthusiastically adopted interactive whiteboards, little research is available on their effect on

student achievement” (Marzano, 2009, p. 80). There “is hardly any research that will show

clearly that any of these machines will improve academic achievement,” said Larry Cuban,

education professor emeritus at Stanford University. “But the value of novelty, that’s highly

prized in American society, period. And one way schools can say they are ‘innovative’ is to pick

up the latest device” (McCrummen, 2011, para 4). What a sad, yet accurate statement.

What Previous Studies Indicate

Recent research studies regarding the impact Interactive White Boards have on student

motivation is not in abundance. As stated by Morgan (2010, p. 4), but unfortunately referring to

older research studies, “research on IWBs has documented how this learning technology often

leads to an increase in learners’ motivation (Freenwell, 2002; Solvie, 2004; Wimer, 2001) and

task engagement (Beeland, 2002; Hodge & Anderson, 2007).” Applicable statistical data was not

located, ultimately questioning the need for studies about student motivation. Considering that

the motivation should not come from the involvement of the technology, this is understandable.

However, motivation is difficult to ignore when considering the acquisition of IWBs.

With the intent of improving the learning methods and processes within a classroom,

more research has been focused on the approach to Interactive White Board use than motivation

and achievement. Engagement and interactivity were key factors. One study, conducted by

Beeland, investigated how middle school students felt the IWB affected their engagement in a

lesson. “Of the 197 responses all but one of the students believed that they were able to learn

better when an IWB was used in the classroom” (Hall, 2011, p. 11). All of the students felt that


the IWB helped them pay better attention during class instruction. “Interactive sites were found

to be the most effective in engaging the students” (Murcia, 2008, p. 3), when utilizing online

learning resources. When incorporating these resources “interactivity of the sites kept students

active in the learning and encouraged group discussion and collaboration with the tasks”

(Murcia, 2008, p. 19). With the increasing rate in which IWB technology is placed in school

settings, it “merits continued research on meaningful, student-centered approaches to

integration” (Dickerson & Winslow, 2011, p. 2). Appropriate approaches may not happen as

soon as a teacher receives an IWB. “Gibson (cited in, Burden, 2002, p.5) suggests that schools

go through a series of stages of technology development: infusion, integration and

transformation” (Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, & Swan, 2010, p. 497). Once the technology

is placed in the schools, however, and the “stakeholders move from the initial infusion stage to

the transformational stage, the teaching and learning processes associated with IWB use

typically shift from being teacher centred [sic] to student centred [sic]” (Northcote et al., 2010, p.

497). As schools make this transition the interactivity associated with the use of the IWBs and

the “meaningful integration with other learning tools also increase” (Northcote et al., 2010, p.

497).

Data concerning the impact IWBs have on student achievement is practically nonexistent.

One study, involving 85 teachers and 170 classrooms, compared the results of when the teachers

used IWBs to teach a set of lessons to one group but did not use the technology for a different

group (Marzano, 2009). According to the results of their study, a 16 percentile point gain could

be expected for student achievement. For example, if a student was at the 52nd percentile in a

classroom that did not have IWB technology they would increase to the 68th percentile in a

classroom with IWB technology. Another feature they determined to increase student

achievement was the use of IWB applications that were used to demonstrate correct answers in

different ways. Utilizing virtual applause upon a correct response, dragging and dropping

pictures into the correct place, uncovering information under hidden objects, or other similar

features was associated with a student achievement gain of 31 percentile points (Marzano, 2009,

p. 80). “Further research is needed to understand how this technology, which has garnered such


enthusiasm from educators and students alike, actually affects student learning, but its potential

does seem promising” (Morgan, 2010, p. 6).

Why choose Kindergarten and Science

While older children can “read, write and express ideas coherently, teachers face the

problem of eliciting prior understanding, providing experiences to challenge and extend existing

ideas, and assess the understanding of students whose literacy skills are still developing”

(Preston & Mowbray, 2008, p. 50). If a teacher conducted a scientific experiment in the

classroom, Kindergarten students would not be able to record observations or reasons for the

outcome. Likewise, students in Kindergarten “are incredibly inquisitive and highly motivated

towards science but lack the skills and ability to deal with multiple relations compared to older

students” (Preston & Mowbray, 2008, p. 51), which can make it difficult to conduct scientific

studies and record results with such young children. This makes IWBs wonderful for introducing

a lesson and determining “children’s prior knowledge and understanding” (Preston & Mowbray,

2008, p. 51).

In a study done on collaborative learning in an elementary setting, the teachers commonly

used an open-ended IWB activity to introduce a new topic. Usually, the children would have to

categorize items into groups or discuss how the items were related. Examples included food

chains and light sources. Using more challenging relationships generally stimulated quality

conversations between the children from which they began to learn (Kershner et al., 2010). One

participating teacher conducted a study comparing IWB use with a seated, hands-on sorting

activity utilizing words relating to light and shadows (p.368). Following the study a few

concerns surfaced. Children in this particular study perceived taking turns at the IWB as sharing

their ideas, rather than the conversational aspect. Also, the ability to copy and paste, apparently

learned at a previous time, made it too easy for the students to copy and paste into both the light

and dark categories without having to make a concrete decision as they would if they were

participating in the paper sorting activity.


Animal teeth and related diets was a topic utilized by a second teacher. The students had

already discussed adaptations and the basic idea of how teeth shapes relate to the food animals

consume. While other students worked on a similar activity at their seats, three students worked

at the IWB. Drawing the shapes of the teeth for a specific organism was required based up what

the students knew about their diet. Being at the IWB provided such a large surface that all three

students were able to interact and analyze the drawing at the same time. While this was

beneficial so they could all be involved without crowding, drawing on such a large scale also

caused them to be more aware and critical of any perceived flaws in their sketches. This group,

who had more IWB experience, was more focused on the science aspect of the task when

interviewed than the group comparing light and dark. As they have learned more about the

functioning of the IWB, “they have collectively moved past the novelty factor which appeared

significantly to influence the Dark and Light group” (Kershner et al., 2010, p. 378).

Researchers determined, through the course of their study, that IWBs would be well

suited for certain types of science activities such as open-ended tasks like the animal teeth. Other

suitable activities include “a series of cumulative tasks set up by the teacher and paced by the

children; tasks requiring the integration of web-based materials and peripheral technologies; and

investigative work requiring discussion, visual representation, and note-taking” (Kershner et al,

2010, p. 380). Students in this study have the background and classroom environment suitable to

develop productive IWB skills. Teachers desiring to have effective IWB lessons must nurture

supportive conditions for success, including “the children’s joint understanding of the task, their

positive motivation and responsibility for learning, and their active support for each other”

(Kershner et al., 2010, p. 381).

In Summary

For teachers who are given an Interactive White Board and expected to work miracles,

school districts need to allow for a growth period and provide training. For IWB recipients, it is

only fair that more research be conducted to determine quality approaches and methods that will

adequately motivate and engage students to a point where they are able to achieve a greater level


of knowledge as a result of the Interactive White Board. Until then, school districts will be

making uninformed purchases expecting unsubstantiated results, which is unfair to all parties

involved. As usual, it is the students who will pay the price as their teachers, unlikely to have

received professional development about IWBs, try to experiment with various techniques in the

classroom.

Research Design and Methodology

Participants and Setting

The subjects for this research project are both male and female Kindergarten students at

Holy Family School in Poland, Ohio. Between both Kindergarten classes there are 20 boys and

14 girls. Out of those boys, there are 12 boys that are six years old; there are eight girls that are

also six years old. There are seven boys that are five years old and there are seven girls that are

also five years old. There are 33 students that are Caucasian and one student that is Asian, who

was born in China. Only 25 students returned the parent consent forms. Those are the students

who participated in this study. In the school setting, there are 282 students in grades

Kindergarten through eighth grade. On average there are two classes per grade in the school with

fifteen classroom teachers, three specialist teachers, two secretaries, one part time speech

therapist, one part time reading specialist, one part time intervention specialist, one full time

autistic aide and one administrator. The schools ethnic demographic is 92% of the students are

white, 0% are black and .05% are other. The demographic data for the school area shows that

22.8% of the population in the school district has an average household family income. The

school provides .09% of students free and reduced lunches.

The school was chosen for this study because of the new addition of ten Promethean

ActivBoards. Because of auxiliary services funds, the school was able to purchase eight boards,

while the other two boards were purchased with funds from the Home and School Alliance. The

Kindergarten classes were chosen to participate in the study because one Kindergarten class has

an ActivBoard and the other does not. The student academic achievement or cognitive level was


not a determining factor in choosing the classes because the students do not take the cognitive

ability tests until later in the spring.

Twelve of the classrooms in the building have Promethean ActivBoards with an

additional 4 more being purchased by the end of the 2011-2012 school year. There are 4

document cameras throughout the building. Each classroom has a DVD and VCR combination

player along with a 32” flat screen TV. In each of the classrooms, there is one 21.5” iMac as

well as one or two additional G4 iMac computers. In the school there is one computer lab with

25 iMac computers, one scanner, one document camera and one Promethean ActivBoard with a

projector. The lab is available for classes to use when it is not in session.

Instrumentation

A non-equivalent group design was utilized by having two groups from two Kindergarten

classes that participated in the study - one group was the Non-ActivBoard group and the other

was the ActivBoard group. These classes are taught by the same teacher at various times

throughout the day. The classes were both given a pre-test and post-test to assess their

understanding of the concept of living and non- living organisms. At the beginning of the

project, there was a survey on the Kindergarten level that Mandy Sinchak asked the students on

what they knew about living and non-living organisms. The answers were recorded and

documented by Ms. Sinchak. Pre-test and post-test data was collected by the teacher and

tabulated for the researchers. Data was used to correlate the performance between the group that

used the ActivBoard and the group that did not use the board. Also the data was used to help

understand how the students’ opinions of the lesson compared to the method that was used to

teach the lesson.

Research Procedures

Permission to begin this study was granted by Youngstown State University’s Human

Subjects Protocol Review Board (Appendix A), along with the school principal (Appendix B). A

parent consent form (Appendix C) went home to each child explaining the study. The research


began when the forms were returned back to school by their due date. At the beginning of the

study, the groups were asked interview questions (Appendix D) which were based on what they

knew about living and non-living things. The teacher, Mandy Sinchak, asked each group the

questions and she wrote their responses on the interview sheet. Appendix E contains the student

responses recorded by Ms. Sinchak. After she conducted the interview, each group had to select

the items on the pre-test assessment paper (Appendix F) to identify if it was a living thing or a

non-living thing. After the pre-test assessment, the ActivBoard group learned the difference

between living and non-living by making a list of what they knew that makes up an item to be

living and non-living. They used the ActivBoard to write the list. The students and the teacher

went through the lesson following the directions. The Non-ActivBoard students were shown

pictures (Appendix G) of living and non-living items; they had to make a tally mark on their

paper under the correct column (Appendix H). They also talked and made a list on the board of

what makes an item living and non-living. Both groups at the end of their lessons had to cut and

paste (Appendix I) the correct picture under the living category and non-living category. The

students were then asked to complete the post assessment questions (Appendices J and K) where

they had to put an “x” under the correct face they agreed with. After the both groups were

finished they were graded and tallied and recorded for us.

Findings and Conclusions

Findings

In the Non-ActivBoard group, according to the post assessment questionnaire, 40% of the

students enjoyed cutting and pasting the living and non-living items; where as 53.3% of the

students did not enjoy this activity. For the pre-assessment, 66.7% of the group enjoyed the

activity compared to 13.3% who had no feelings about the assessment or did not like the activity

at all. Overall 73.3% of the students enjoyed learning about living and non-living items where as

13.3% of the students did not enjoy it. One hundred percent of the students were able to tell if

something was living and if it was a non-living item. Every student missed the same picture in

the pre assessment; each student thought that the apple was considered a non-living thing. For

the Post test cut and paste assessment, 93% of the students were able to decipher between living

and non-living.


In the ActivBoard group, the results from the post assessment questionnaire, 53.3% of the

students did not enjoy the cutting and pasting assessment of the lesson, 45.5% of them did enjoy

it, whereas only .09% of the students had no feeling what so ever. The results were identical

when asked how they liked working with the ActivBoard. The percentage of students that did

not enjoy working on the ActivBoard was 53.3% and the percentage of students who did enjoy

working on the ActivBoard was 45.5%. There were technical problems that day when the

research was conducted, though. As for the content, 53.3% of the students showed no emotion

when asked how they like learning about living and non-living items. Only 36.3% of the students

really did enjoy learning about this topic.

Conclusions

By looking at the research question, “Does interactive white board technology promote

more student motivation (enjoyment) and improved post-test performance at the Kindergarten

level compared to a traditional pencil and paper instructional method?” the results lean towards

students doing better using the traditional method.

Even though there were technical difficulties with the board that day, there were still

some issues with students not comprehending the information that was presented only using the

board. With the Pre-Test performance of the class that was using the Interactive White Board

being sent home, there was no way to compare the results with the results from the students who

did not use the interactive white board. Also, with the lesson activity using the interactive white

board and not recording the data, we were not able to compare how the students did. Finally, the

use of technology should not replace the traditional style of learning. They should both be

incorporated into daily learning and both be used.

The following tables (1-4) represent how the students responded to the various parts of

the pre-test, post-test, the lesson of the activities and the post-test evaluation. This set of tables

represents the group of students who were the Non-Interactive White Board group.


Table 1

Pre-Test for Non-Interactive White Board Group

Pre-test performance of the class that did not use the Interactive White Board

Students who did not miss any

Students who missed one

0 12

Table 2

Lesson Activity for Non-Interactive White Board Group

Lesson activity performance of the class that did not use the Interactive White Board



11 1

Table 3

Post-Test for Non-Interactive White Board Group

Post-test performance of the class that did not use the Interactive White Board



11 1

Table 4

Post-Test for Non-Interactive White Board Group

Post-test lesson evaluation of the class that did not use the Interactive White Board

1. Cutting out the pictures of living and nonliving things 5 0 7

2. Using red and green crayons to draw the lines for living and nonliving

8 2 2


3. Learning about what is living and nonliving 9 1 2

The following tables (5-8) show how the students in the Interactive White Board group

responded to the pre-test, post test, and the post-test evaluation.

Table 5

Pre-Test for Interactive White Board Group

Pre-test performance of the class that did use the Interactive White Board *Pre-test was accidentally sent home with the students, so no data exists



* *

Table 6

Lesson Activity for Interactive White Board Group

Lesson activity performance of the class that did use the Interactive White Board *No data was recorded during the students’ individual participation at the Interactive White Board



* *

Table 7

Post-Test for Interactive White Board Group

Post-test performance of the class that did use the Interactive White Board



7 6

Table 8

Post-Test Evaluation for Interactive White Board Group

Post-test lesson evaluation of the class that did use the Interactive White Board

1. Cutting out the pictures of living and nonliving things 5 0 8


2. Using the active board 4 1 8

3. Learning about what is living and nonliving 4 7 2

Recommendations and Implications

Our research team did not end up with the amount of time to conduct our research that we

felt was necessary to complete a quality examination of the effects the Interactive White Board

has on student motivation and achievement. Therefore, we have several recommendations for

improvement in further studies. We also understand that with our limited study, there are not

many direct implications for other teachers.

Recommendations

With the action research assignment’s requirement that none of the researchers were to

participate in the classroom where the research was being conducted, it made it more difficult to

ensure all steps and procedures were followed. One example that significantly affected our study

was that Ms. Sinchak sent the pre-tests for the ActivBoard participant group home with the

students. Therefore, we did not have the necessary data to compare initial performance to post-

test performance. In addition, data was not collected for this same group of participants while

they completed their lesson at the ActivBoard. In this situation, we were unable to determine

how their performance at the ActivBoard compared to the performance of the Non-ActivBoard

group or to their post-test results. Therefore, one recommendation from our group is to make

sure all procedures can be followed and monitored so that all data was collected and saved for

the study.

Another factor we believe affected the results in our study was the technological

difficulties experienced in the classroom the day of the research. Without being present for the

study, we were unable to ask the teacher if it would be possible to move the lesson to another day

to reduce the impact of the technological difficulties. Also, without witnessing the event, we do

not know how significantly it affected the students. When conducting active research in the


classroom, there will be unexpected events. Teachers know that when planning a lesson around

technology there must always be a back-up plan. Unfortunately, when conducting research, a

back-up plan isn’t always sufficient. As a result, our recommendation is to check all technology

prior to use to eliminate unexpected surprises as much as possible and to have a plan in place in

case the technology that is a key part of the research is not functioning properly.

Additionally, our research was very limited as far as time. Ideally, this type of research

would be conducted over a long period of time, allowing various science topics to be taught and

compared. This would also reduce the impact of issues such as those we experienced with the

lack of data and technological difficulties. Comparing larger amounts of data would provide a

more complete picture of how Interactive White Boards do impact student motivation and

achievement. Our recommendation would be to conduct this type of research for at least ten

different science lessons to collect more extensive data.

One final recommendation deals with the group of students who are involved in the

studies. For example, we noticed that the same percentage, 45.5%, of the ActivBoard participant

group enjoyed the cutting and pasting activity as enjoyed using the ActivBoard for the lesson,

even though only 36.3% of that group liked learning about living and nonliving things. Perhaps

this group of students simply likes school and would be happy no matter what they did. As a

result, we would recommend monitoring that data to see if results seem to correspond to their

enthusiasm about the content or just the activities.

Implications

Action research is a practical way to find out what does and does not work in our

classrooms. However, a limited study such as ours has few implications without conducting

further research. A few pieces of data did lead us to consider their impact in the learning

environment.


Data from the pre-assessment demonstrates that all of the students in the Non-ActivBoard

group believed that an apple was a nonliving object. Unfortunately we did not have comparison

data for the ActivBoard group. However, this pre-assessment indicated that Ms. Sinchak needed

to address that the apple was still considered to be a living object and find out why the students

felt it would be nonliving. A solid learning opportunity was created by this pre-assessment.

According to the data, another obvious finding was that more students did not enjoy

cutting and pasting the pictures of living and nonliving things. When more than 50% of the class

does not enjoy a comparison activity that may be used often in the classroom, the teacher should

look for an activity that accomplishes the same purpose, but that more students enjoy. In our case

the cutting and pasting activity was an assessment, but this type of activity is often used as a

learning activity in classrooms, too. Therefore, Ms. Sinchak should reconsider her use of this tool

in her current Kindergarten classroom.

Another implication for Ms. Sinchak’s Kindergarten classroom is that, despite the limited

data, the students in the Non-ActivBoard group showed growth and did well on their post

assessment. Until further research can be conducted, she would know that the method used to

teach the Non-ActivBoard group was effective despite the tendency toward a more traditional

style of teaching.

Finally, we examined the effect of the ActivBoard on motivation in this situation. With

53.3% of students not enjoying the ActivBoard activity, we began to question the real impact of

an IWB on student motivation. If this lack of enjoyment was a result of the technical difficulties,

does it also affect their learning of the content? Or, with the bombardment of technology

Kindergarteners have already experienced in their lives, has the novelty of the IWB already worn

off? As noted earlier, Verenikina et al. (2010) addressed this issue by explaining that the IWB

may gain student attention in the beginning, but in the long run it is the teacher’s responsibility to

engage the students with lesson content rather than relying on the technology. Perhaps Ms.


Sinchak needs to take this into consideration as well, and not even consider the use of technology

for motivation if that is currently a factor in her planning.

Despite the limitations of our study, we still agree that further research needs to be

conducted concerning the impact of IWBs in the classroom. Because of the high rate at which

IWBs are being placed in classrooms, this research is warranted (Dickerson and Winslow, 2011).

And, regardless of the enthusiasm expressed by many adults, research needs to be conducted to

better understand how IWBs actually affect student learning (Morgan, 2010).

Lesson Plan

Name of Lesson

Interactive Technology versus Traditional Paper and pencil Instruction: Comparing Student

Comprehension

Subject and Topic of the Lesson Plan

Life Science- Identifying Living versus Non-living Things

Grade Level

Kindergarten

Content Standards

LS. Life Science

14. This topic focuses on observing, exploring, describing and comparing living things in

Ohio.


15. Living things are different from nonliving things.

16. Living things include anything that is alive or has ever been alive. Living things have

specific traits. Living things grow and reproduce. Living things are found almost

everywhere in the world. There are somewhat different kinds in different places.

Technology Standards

Standard 1: Nature of Technology Students develop an understanding of technology, its

characteristics, scope, core concepts and relationships between technologies and other fields

Benchmark A: Recognize the characteristics and scope of technology.

1. Identify objects created within the human-made worlds (ex: books, chairs,

houses, buses) and objects that occur in nature (ex: trees, flowers, rocks, and

rivers).

Current Research Directly Affecting the Content of the Lesson Plan

Technology is an ever changing field, especially when it is used in the educational

setting, and because of these changes, there is a lot of research that directly affects the content of

this lesson plan. One such article used in the literature review, “Integrating Technology into the

Classroom: How Does It Impact Student Achievement?” discusses this very topic. This article

directly looks at how technology is used in the classroom and whether or not traditional methods

of teaching are becoming obsolete. Although our findings during our action research suggested

otherwise, researchers in this article say one of the most important ways to enhance student

learning is through the use of educational technology.

Other research conducted on the topic of our lesson plan is found in an article from the

Washington Post entitled, “Some educators question if whiteboards, other high-tech tools raise

achievement”. Many of the educators in this article stated that the use of an interactive board in


their classroom did not improve students’ test scores. In fact, in many cases test scores were

lower than they were through the use of traditional methods of teaching.

Instructional Objectives

1. Students will be able to determine the difference between living and nonliving things.

2. Students will be able to use various media (pencil and paper and interactive board) to sort

living and nonliving pictures.

Materials and Resources

Promethean ActivBoard

Promethean ActivBoard Software

Glue

Scissors

Crayons

Projector

Computer

Copier/printer

Internet

Curriculum Methods and Strategies

Mrs. Sinchak decided what class would represent each group. She conducted the pre-

interview with both classes. She asked the students the questions (Appendix D) and wrote the

responses down for the researchers to read (Appendix E). On the pre-test for both groups, as

seen in Appendix F, the students had to decide if something was living or non-living. The lesson

for the Non-ActivBoard group dealt with lecture and an activity using pictures (Appendix G)

where the students had to decide if something was living and non-living. Students kept track of

each on their tally sheet (Appendix H). During the lesson for the ActivBoard group, the students

had the opportunity to go up to the board and learn about living and non-living things. Students

were able to use the ActivBoard to show what they had learned. On the post-test for both

groups, as seen in Appendix I, the students were asked to cut and paste squares in the correct

section for either living or non-living. After the lessons for both groups, the teacher, Mrs.

Sinchak, did a post-evaluation questionnaire. Using the post-evaluation tool, the students


decided if they liked, disliked or had no opinion on what they learned. These two post-

evaluations can be seen in Appendices J and K. All results were collected and recorded for the

researchers to use.

Curriculum Methods and Strategies to Address the Needs of Diverse Learners

For the needs of diverse learners, the instructor would need to modify the pre-test, post-

test and evaluation to fit the individual needs of the learners. The use of the interactive board,

the instructor would have the opportunity to use the voice over controls to be used with students

who are visually impaired. Using large fonts and bright colors could be helpful with students

who are visually impaired or students who have trouble staying on task. Students who are

kinesthetic learners will benefit from using the interactive whiteboard because of the ability of

the boards to respond to touch.

Assessment

There were several assessments used in the lesson. The interview (Appendix D) consisted

of a series of questions to evaluate the students’ knowledge before the lesson began. Also used to

evaluate the students’ knowledge was a pre-test, which was a line connecting activity all students

participated in (Appendix F). The post-test, seen in Appendix I, was taken immediately after the

lesson was taught in both classes. The students had to cut pictures and paste them in the

appropriate section depending if they were living or nonliving. There were two post evaluation

questionnaires, one for each group. The class who did not use the ActivBoard had questions

based on their experience (Appendix J), where the class that did use the ActivBoard had a

different question pertaining to the use of the board (Appendix K).


References

Dickerson, J., Winslow, J. (2011). Interactive white boards in K-12 classrooms: Tools for

teaching technology. North Carolina Council on Technology Teacher Education Technology

Education Journal, 8, 1-5.

Hall, R. (2011). Interactive white boards: Changing students’ attitudes about science. Leadership

Research 2011: Horizons, 2 (1). Retrieved October 21, 2011, from

http://journal.viuonline.ca/index.php/eddev/article/view/19/17

Harvey-Woodall, A. (2009). Integrating technology into the classroom: How does it impact

student achievement? Retrieved November 21, 2011, from

http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED505984.pdf

Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive

technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24,

61-73.

Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Staarman, J. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard

support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science

activities? Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 359-383.

Marzano, R. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Multiple Measures, 67(3), 80-82.

McCrummen, S. (2010). Some educators question if whiteboards, other high-tech tools

raise achievement. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 21, 2011, from

http://bedfordtownmeeting.com/uploads/WP_6_13_10_Value_of_Tech.pdf

Murcia, K. (2008).Teaching for scientific literacy with an interactive whiteboard.

http://bedfordtownmeeting.com/uploads/WP_6_13_10_Value_of_Tech.pdf

http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED505984.pdf

http://journal.viuonline.ca/index.php/eddev/article/view/19/17


Teaching Science, 54(4), 17-21. Retrieved from

http://smartboardita.pbworks.com/f/Teaching+for+scientific++literacy+with+an+

+interactive+whiteboard.pdf

Morgan, H. (2010). Teaching with the interactive white board: An engaging way to provide

instruction. Focus on Elementary, Spring, 3-7. Retrieved October 21, 2011, from

http://hanimorgan.com/TEACHINGWITHTHEINTERACTIVEWHITEBOARD.pdf

Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards:

Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(Special

issue, 4), 494-510. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/northcote.html

Preston, C., Mowbray, L. (2008). Use of SMART Boards for teaching, learning, and assessment

in kindergarten science. Teaching Science, 54(2), 50-53. Retrieved

http://smartboardita.pbworks.com/f/smartboard+with+kindergartener.pdf

Teich, A. (2009). Interactive whiteboards enhance classroom instruction and learning. Retrieved

November 14, 2011, from http://www.neamb.com/print/1216_2782.htm

Verenikina, I., Wrona, K., Jones, P.T. & Kervin, L.K. (2010). Interactive whiteboards:

interactivity, activity and literacy teaching. In J. Herrington & B. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings

of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp.

2605-2614). VA, USA: AACE.

Winzenried, A. Lee, M. (n.d.). Implementing interactive whiteboards: What can we learn?

TEACH, 1(1), 6-8. Retrieved November 30, 2011, from http://www.ministryofteaching.edu.au/

journal/pdfs/3-winzenried+lee_6-8.pdf

http://www.ministryofteaching.edu.au/journal/pdfs/3-winzenried+lee_6-8.pdf

http://www.ministryofteaching.edu.au/

http://www.neamb.com/print/1216_2782.htm

http://smartboardita.pbworks.com/f/smartboard+with+kindergartener.pdf

http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/northcote.html

http://hanimorgan.com/TEACHINGWITHTHEINTERACTIVEWHITEBOARD.pdf

http://smartboardita.pbworks.com/f/Teaching+for+scientific++literacy+with+an++interactive+whiteboard.pdf

http://smartboardita.pbworks.com/f/Teaching+for+scientific++literacy+with+an++interactive+whiteboard.pdf


Appendices

Appendix A

Approval from Youngstown State University for Research

Dear investigators,

Thank you for submitting the required documents for this approved study. They will be printed and appended to your original submission. Best wishes for your study completion.

Cathy

From: Cheryl Coy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:32 AMTo: Parrott, Cathy BieberSubject: Fwd: Re: YSI IRB PRotocol 058-12

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: YSI IRB PRotocol 058-12

Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:30:46 -0800 (PST)

From: Janet Cadman <[email protected]>

To: Cathy Bieber Parrott <[email protected]>'Cheryl Coy' <[email protected]>

Here is the certificate that is needed to go along with our research project. Also attached is the updated letter with the changes that were made.

Thank you very much for your understanding and help during this process.

Janet Cadman

--- On Thu, 12/8/11, Cathy Bieber Parrott <[email protected]> wrote:From: Cathy Bieber Parrott <[email protected]>Subject: YSI IRB PRotocol 058-12To: "'Renee Eggers'" <[email protected]>, "'Janet Cadman'" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]: "'Cheryl Coy'" <[email protected]>Date: Thursday, December 8, 2011, 3:54 PM

https://exchange.access-k12.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=3865a86485ac4d4a8c89f10ae56ce9d6&URL=mailto%[email protected]











Dear Investigators,

Your project “Interactive Whiteboard Technology vs traditional pencil and paper instruction: comparing student motivation and performance” has undergone full committee review. It was determined the project would also meet exemption criteria for category 1. The project is approved with the following conditions:

1. Change the return date on the informed consent document.

2. Add the following to the consent document just after the contact information for Ms. Cadman: If you have questions about this research project please contact [insert here the principal investigator’s contact information]. If you have questions about your child participating as a human subject in this project, you may contact Dr. Edward Orona, Director of Grants and Sponsored Programs at YSU (330-941-2377).

If the investigators cannot comply with the conditions the project is not approved and the investigators need to contact the IRB chairperson. A hard copy of the revised consent document needs sent to Cheryl Coy in the Grants Office at YSU. The primary investigator will receive an official letter in the mail regarding exempt status. However, while awaiting this letter, you may proceed with your project based on this email notification of approval. Please use the protocol number 058-12 for all future communications about this project. Best wishes for successful completion of your project.

Please remember that prior to starting your project using human subjects, a certificate of completion of training for the ethical treatment of human subjects must be on file in the YSU Office of Grants and Sponsored Programs (OGSP). If you have not completed this training, you may do so online at the website provided on the OGSP website. You will print out a completion certificate once you finish the training module. Send a copy of this certificate to C.Coy in the OGSP in Coffelt Hall, YSU. The certificate is valid for future IRB submission for 3 years from the original completion date.

Cathy Bieber Parrott

Chair, YSU IRB


Appendix B

Letter from Holy Family Principal


Appendix C

Letter of Consent

Dear Parents of Holy Family School Kindergarten Students,

Mrs. Janet Cadman, the computer and Art teacher and also a graduate student from Youngstown State University, along with Mrs. Sinchak are conducting a study to compare student comprehension with using Interactive Technology (ActivBoard) vs. Traditional Pencil and Paper Instruction.

In this study, your child will be asked to participate in a science lesson where they will be either using the ActivBoard or will be using traditional pencil and paper for the lesson. The completed work for this assignment and their participation should take about twenty (20) minutes. Your child will be given full instruction on what they will be doing at the beginning of the lesson.

There are no risks to your child and all information will be handled in a strictly confidential manner, so that no one will be able to identify your child when the results are recorded.

Please sign the permission form and return to Mrs. Cadman by December 12, 2011. Both child and parent/guardian will need to sign the bottom.

Please feel free to contact Mrs. Janet Cadman at 330-757-3713 ext. 30, if you have any questions about this research project or contact Ms. Stoops at 330-757-3713. If you have questions about your child participating as a human subject in this project, you may contact Dr. Edward Orona, Director of Grants and Sponsored Programs at YSU (330-941-2377)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________ I understand the study described and I agree to have my child participate with his/her assent.

________________________________________

SIGNATURE OF PARENT/GUARDIAN / DATE

______ I DO NOT WANT MY CHILD TO PARTCIPATE IN THIS STUDY.

I understand that I will be told the directions at the beginning the lesson and I want to take part in the study.

_________________________________________________________

Signature of Student / Date


Appendix D

Interview Questions Used for Pre-test

Interview Questions for Kindergarten (pre-test)

1) What ways can you tell if something is living?

2) What ways can you tell if something is non-living?

3) What are 5 examples of something living

4) What are 5 examples of something non-living

5) What do all living things need to survive?


Appendix E

Interview Question Sample Responses


Appendix F

Images for Pre-Test - Drawing Red and Green Lines


Appendix G

Pictures for Tally Lesson for Non-ActivBoard Participants


Appendix H

Tally Sheet for Non-ActivBoard Lesson


Appendix I

Post-Test Cut and Paste


Appendix J

Kindergarten Post-Evaluation for Non-ActivBoard Participants

Kindergarten Post Test Evaluation Group PA

Cutting out the pictures of living and non-living

Using red and green crayons to draw the lines for living and non-living

Learning about what is living and non-living


Appendix K

Kindergarten Post- Evaluation for ActivBoard Participants

Kindergarten Post Test Evaluation Group AB

Cutting out the pictures of living and non-living

Using the Active Board

Learning about what is living and non-living

Reflection- Janet Cadman


When I started this class, I was a little anxious about it. Having already

experienced a research class on the graduate level at a different university, my experience was

not the greatest. I had the preconceived idea how this supposed to go. But as the class went on, I

realized that my idea how a research class was, I realized I was wrong. I enjoyed learning the

different aspects of action research, how it was conducted. I became very excited about the

process.

After we finalized our research question and assigned the jobs, we began the process of

filling out the HRSC paperwork. I assumed that once we turned in our paperwork, it would be

reviewed within a couple of days. I didn’t realize we would be waiting. Even though the group

was waiting to hear, I found this part of the process to be interesting. Since I was the one who

was having the research done at my school, I was in contact the most. Having the conversations

with about the research and listening to the advice that was given helped us along in

understanding the whole process. I realized the whole process needs to be longer than a semester

long class.

The part of the process that bothered me more than anything was the fact that we as the

group members were not part of the research process. We were there to collect the data not

conduct the research. If I had the opportunity to do this again, I would make sure the changes of

having contact with the students, and conducting the research over a longer period of time.

I really can see myself conducting more action research projects in the future. The

benefits of how they can help a school is amazing. With this information that we have, I am able

to bring it back to school to present to the teachers, that yes the technology is important but it

should not take away from the traditional way of learning.


Reflection- Jena Martin

I have learned a significant amount from this class regarding action research, however I feel as

though this particular experience could have yielded better results. Had our group been able to

actually conduct the lesson and research ourselves, I think I would have learned more and been

able to apply what I learned throughout the course of the class this semester. I found it difficult

to connect on a personal level with this project because we had no contact with the test subjects.

All we were able to do was collect data and analyze it after the lesson was already taught by

someone else. I would have loved to conduct this research in my own classroom using discovery

education. We are implementing Discovery Education testing at the end of every class next year.

This action research could have provided me with sufficient data I could use to help me

transition my lessons for the new assessments we need to give next year. This type of research

would have allowed me to connect with the project personally.

My group members could not have been more supportive and cooperative throughout the

experience. I feel as though we were able to communicate and work together to make decisions

in a very timely manner. Sometimes it is difficult to work in a group and agree on what needs to

be done, but I do not feel that way about this experience whatsoever.


Action Research Reflection - Amy McCormick

Action research is not an easy process, but this particular study was more complicated

than necessary and, for me, did not reveal the true benefits of action research. The portion of our

topic dealing with Interactive White Boards is applicable to my job every day, so I hoped the

experience would provide more insight than it did. Perhaps my expectations were set too high in

the beginning.

All three members of our team met in person in early October to decide on a subject for

our research. We came up with a study to determine if online, interactive lessons, such as those

offered by DiscoveryEducation, were more effective than textbook and lecture lessons. This

study was going to be conducted in Jena’s classroom. Obviously we had missed the part of the

directions explaining that the research could not be conducted in any of our own classrooms, but

we realized that while we were all together. Fortunately, Janet had friend, Mandy Sinchak, who

had offered her classroom if Janet ever needed to conduct research. At that point we began to

consider what would make the least disruption of the daily routine in her classroom and cover

Kindergarten standards. We decided on the basic lesson addressing the comparison of living and

non-living things and the use of the Interactive White Board. Completing what we could on the

form for the Human Subjects Review Committee (HSRC) and creating some of the worksheets,

we went our separate ways to begin working on the project. Reasonably smooth sailing so far.

At this point we ran into our main complication – the HSRC approval. None of us knew

that it would take more than 6 weeks for approval. After finally getting approved, it was a

scramble for Mandy to get everything done in the classroom and get the research to us in hopes

of completing the project on time. Between schedules and distance, it was not possible for

anyone other than Janet to help guide her through the process for her classroom. Perhaps if we

were all able to meet together, she would not have sent pre-tests home with the students or we

could have discussed what to do if the technology had problems. We quickly realized it was not

going to be possible to finish by the end of the semester. Meeting again, we reviewed what data

Janet had at that time and determined who would take care of what portions of the paper. The

remainder of the data was sent through email and discussions continued about the paper over the

remainder of the time. Unfortunately, the delay from the HSRC approval had a significant impact


on our experience since all three team members had responsibilities over winter break that could

not be adjusted –having a baby, having surgery, and conducting year-end inventory for a

business. I do have to say, though, that Janet and I did have some great communication sessions

over break, making it seem like we were in the same room working on the paper together. I had

never experienced that positive of an experience working online.

Having conducted action research in my own classroom before, I felt that having the

research conducted in another teacher’s classroom made it a very disconnected experience. Other

than Janet providing Mandy with the materials we created and then receiving the data from her,

we did not get to experience the process. When we met to go over the data, it was fun and

interesting, but just not the same.

Conducting research for the literature review was frustrating and disappointing. Despite

being relatively adept at internet searching, I have not mastered the techniques for finding quality

literature. The most frustrating portion was that much of the research was done in the late 1990s

and early 2000s. I assume this is because that was the time frame when IWBs were new – and

very expensive – so research was conducted to gather data to determine if they would make good

classroom tools. Obviously this is just a guess on my part, but I feel that the research may have

dropped off because it became evident that IWBs were going to be purchased for classrooms

whether any data existed or not. As a teacher who uses an IWB every day, I want research to be

conducted not just to say yes they do increase learning or no they don’t. Instead, use the research

to provide proven techniques so teachers can develop lessons that will make the best use of the

IWB instead of making a replacement for a chalk board.

Overall, I was glad to have the opportunity to experience action research again to

reinforce the process. I am more likely to try it again in the future having done it twice. With the

issues, though, I am grateful this was not my first experience because I do not think I would have

developed an appreciation for the process. However, the material in our text book was written in

a much more understandable fashion than the one I used before. Between the textbook and

blackboard, I felt I have a better technical understanding of action research.


Transcripts of Communication

from: Amy McCormick [email protected] to: Janet Cadman <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" [email protected]: Amy McCormick <[email protected]>

date: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM

subject: human subject

Janet and Jena,

We need to fill out the human subject paperwork and submit it before we can actually start our research. Then, we do have to wait for them to approve it before we can start. All 3 of us have to sign it and it has to be dropped off at YSU. So, we can't fill it out until we find out what we are doing. Janet, did you have any luck with your Kindergarten friend? I hope so. I told her we were having trouble finding someone but didn't get any sympathy :) Oh well, I tried!

Just wanted to update you.

Have a great day!

from: Amy McCormick [email protected] to: "[email protected]" [email protected]: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:27 PMsubject: Getting together

Hey!

I heard back from Janet after sending the email about the human study thing and she said we are a go for the project - that she has set it up and it has been cleared by the principal. So, we need to get the form filled out and taken to YSU and then start to work on the other stuff. She said Tuesday of next week was good for her. That works for me, too - how does it sound to you?

We need to get together with Julie, too. I will try to email about that tonight once I get the stuff done for the report card meeting tomorrow.

Thanks!

mailto:[email protected]



from: Jena Martin [email protected] to: Amy McCormick [email protected]: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:01 PMsubject: Re: Getting together

Yep...Tuesday works for me!

from: Amy McCormick [email protected] to: Jena Martin [email protected]: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:18 PMsubject: RE: Getting together

Amazing! We all pulled off a day on the first try :) Ill let her know.

from: Amy McCormick [email protected] to: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Janet Cadman [email protected]: Amy McCormick <[email protected]>

date: Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM

subject: paperwork

Hi girls :)

I have attached everything I have added to the paperwork so far. A few of the remaining items will have to be completed by Mandy and other than that things just need looked over EXCEPT for #1C. I have looked through the book and I don't know what the design method, mode, and analysis is looking for. None of those are addressed in that fashion in our text. So, I have done what I can do without further help.

Hope the week has been good for both of you!

from: Jena Martin [email protected] to: Amy McCormick [email protected]: Janet Cadman [email protected]







date: Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:23 PMsubject: Re: paperworkHere are the worksheets I found for the pre and post test. Let me know if there is a problem... They look really good on my computer

from: Janet Cadman [email protected] to: Amy McCormick <[email protected]>,Jena Martin <[email protected]>

date: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:06 PMsubject: Re: paperworkmailed-by: yahoo.comsigned-by: yahoo.comHow does the letter sound? Let me know of any changes...

Happy Friday!

Janet

from: Amy McCormick [email protected] to: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Janet Cadman [email protected]: Amy McCormick [email protected]: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:01 PMsubject: Idea

HI!

I had an idea as I was reading one of the articles. I will not be offended AT ALL if either of you aren't interested...

The article was about a kindergarten class and how the students interacted and felt about a lesson with one class using a smart board and the other class not using one. It went into motivation (= learning) and meeting the needs of diverse students.

I was thinking this might make our research and justification easier but wouldn't have to change much about our actual classroom project. I can update the review form over the weekend if we change our minds.

Let me know your thoughts. Again, won't be offended!




from: Jena Martin [email protected] to: Amy McCormick [email protected]: Janet Cadman [email protected]: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:05 PMsubject: Re: Idea

Definitely does not matter to me.

from: Janet Cadman [email protected] to: Amy McCormick [email protected]: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Amy McCormick <[email protected]>

date: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:06 AMsubject: Re: Idea

mailed-by: yahoo.com

signed-by: yahoo.com

Hi! I got a call from Dr.Eggers and we need to add in our names to the first page... I already did this- but all I need is your phone numbers... I will print this out again and deliver this to her today...

Have a good day...

Janet

Hey! You are 1 day closer to the start of the weekend!!!!

from: Jena Martin [email protected]

to: Janet Cadman <[email protected]>,

Amy McCormick <[email protected]>

date: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:51 AM

subject: Re: Idea





Hey,

How is everything going with the lesson? I have parent teacher conferences this Thursday and was wondering if there was anything I could look over or complete. Hope all is going well for both of you!

from: Amy McCormick [email protected]

to: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

cc: Amy McCormick <[email protected]>

date: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:16 PM

subject: Kindergarten standards

Hi!

I am sending you the kindergarten technology stuff that applies by Standard.Benchmark.Indicator

These are the only technology ones that apply. I don't have a science book anymore, so I can't help there. I left that for the new guy :)

3.B.1. Listen to directions and use proper care when handling computer and multimedia technology

4.B.1 Examine digital images in learning

I will let you know when I hear from Dr. Eggers. Hope things are slowing down for you :)




date: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:12 AM

subject: Final

mailed-by: gmail.com


Hello!

Janet, for the introduction I need a detailed description of the instructional setting and the subjects we used. Do you have that information somewhere?

Also, what would you like to name our final? I need a name for the intro and the lesson plan.

Hope you guys are doing well!

from: Janet Cadman [email protected]

to: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,


date: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:39 AM

subject: News on our research



Well this isn't good... Not sure what we will have to do now...

I will call her this afternoon

Janet

Hey! You are 1 day closer to the start of the weekend!!!!

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cathy Bieber Parrott" <[email protected]>

Date: November 28, 2011 9:05:06 AM EST

To: "'Cheryl Coy'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: #057-12


Dr. Cadman, Because you will be interacting directly with the children per your response in the email below, your project is not eligible for exemption and has been placed on the agenda for full committee review scheduled for Dec 6, 2011. If you have further questions about your project, I will be in my office all this afternoon and most of tomorrow at ext 2559. If you call and you get voice mail, please leave a time and number when I can reach you so. Cathy Bieber ParrottChair, YSU IRB From: Cheryl Coy [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:33 PM

To: Parrott, Cathy Bieber

Subject: Fwd: #057-12

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: #057-12

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:49:50 -0500

From: Janet Cadman <[email protected]>

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>

Dear Ms.Bieber Parrott, Thank you for letting us know about our project. To answer your questions: 1. Whether any of the researchers will be directly interacting with the children rather than simply receiving the data from the teacher? I will be directly interacting with the children along with the teacher in the classroom. 2. Is the science content being taught for the research the same as would be taught even if the research wasn’t being conducted or is the content only for the research project? The science content will be taught the same way that it would be even if the research was not be conducted. Before we decided on this topic, I worked with our kindergarten teacher in deciding what would be a good lesson for this project. In hope this is what you are looking for.If not, please let me know what else I can do. ThanksJanet Cadman


to: Amy McCormick <[email protected]>,

"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

date: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:26 PM

subject: Re: News on our research




Hi!

I just got off the phone with Cathy bieber parrott-

she suggested that we have the teacher do the actual lesson,

have the pre and post test graded blindly,

I would grade them- how we would go about that is

on the papers have 2 sheets 1 with the name of the student

the other will be the test.. When they are ready to be graded-

tear off that sheet. Also the part about the demographics-

she said that if we wanted to - have the teacher- get

The cognitive scores from the files- we are not allowed- illegal-

Write down the scores on the test(paper without the name)

keeping the classes separate- look at the comparisons of

the cognitive scores and the results ... All we have to do is add an

addendum to the email stating our changes- she thought with these

changes this would be a great study to be presented and published..

who knew! I am able to do those changes if we wanted to- we have to

Let her know by end of this week....

Let me know what you think..

All aboard the crazy train time!

Janet

On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Amy McCormick <[email protected]> wrote:

yes, wonderful! I doubt we will be able to get it finished by the due date. Let me know what you find out :)





date: Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 9:40 AM

subject: Re: News on our research

Whatever we have to do to get started is fine by me. I just want to get this done in case I have this baby early.


to: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,

Amy McCormick <[email protected]>,

"dr.eggers" <[email protected]>

date: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:16 PM

subject: Research 6945



Hi all! I got an email about the review- we are on the agenda for Tuesday. Keep your fingers cross... I have everything ready for the lessons to give to the teacher... I hope it goes smoothly... Jenna I hope the baby is ready to learn about action research! Don't worry about anything... I will be willing to help you with anything you need with this project!

Happy Monday!

Janet

: Jena Martin [email protected]

to: Janet Cadman <[email protected]>

date: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM

subject: Re: Research 6945

mailed-by: gmail.com


That is great news! I will keep my fingers crossed!


to: Jena Martin <[email protected]>,


date: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM

subject: Re: Research 6945



WE ARE APPROVED! I will forward the letter to you..I will send home the letters tomorrow and have them come back monday to begin on tuesday... . I say we contact Eggers ask her for an extension to get it all done.....jenna keep me informed what u need me to do with your part of anything...


to: [email protected]

date: Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:18 PM

subject: poland socio econ. infor



Let me know if this is not what you need....

Have a good night... Janet


to: Amy McCormick <[email protected]>,

[email protected]


date: Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM

subject: appendix information



The only appendix I do not have is the approval letter... If I remember correctly it was supposed to be mailed to us. I hope it does...

Enjoy the weekend!

Janet

On Dec 17, 2011, at 5:26 PM, Amy McCormick <[email protected]> wrote:

Janet, I cannot find a link that singles out this girl's article and when I tried to copy and paste it, several different ways, the format is not at all like the original document. Her article starts on page 145 (which it should open to) and ends on 152 (wow, that is actually pretty short). Anyway, I am not saying it is perfect but I didn't think it was too bad for a reference. Just click on the link and it will take you to the un-copy-able pages :) http://www.gcsu.edu/engagement/studentresearch/docs/The_Corinthian_Volume_10.pdf#page=145 I haven't heard anything from Jena yet, but when I do I will send you her part, too, so you can look over it. :)Amy

From: Jena Martin [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:47 PMTo: Amy McCormick; Janet CadmanSubject: my portion of the final

Sorry it is Thursday. I have been so sick I haven't been able to move. PLEASE let me know what else I need to do/change. I hope you both are healthy and have had a good week. Hope to hear from you soon.


Did you get my communication log? Jenaps no baby yet

RE: my portion of the finalAmy McCormickSent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:24 PMTo: Jena Martin [[email protected]]

You forgot to attach the document :) I was worried again, but figured you had the baby. Sorry you are so sick! We had a good weekend away, but since then have finally succumbed to the sinus infection, so I started my antibiotics. I can't really complain though because I am not "down" with it - just wimpy.I am done with the lit review with the exception of adding in our reasons - not too much, but still have to do my other part. Got the communication log - it turned out good! I can keep adding things to it as we finish up. Hope you feel better soon! I can't believe you haven't delivered - see, you are waiting for another holiday :) Keep in touch!Amy

Hi! I read in the APA manual today (such exciting reading...) and it said that the appendix has to be in the order that it is mentioned in the paper, which was new to me. I mean, it makes sense, but that is kind of hard to do when 3 people are writing a paper. I would just enter the name of the document and highlight it and then we can change it to Appendix whatever when the paper is done. I would think they should be in there, though, at least the mention of them. I think I would be more specific about the assessment, maybe naming the specific ones? I don't know - there isn't much to write. For the current research part are you just going to use the articles and references I used, or is that Janet's part? It would be the easiest to use my stuff I would think, then you wouldn't have to do any research on your own. The Kindergarten and science part of my literature review would be easy to incorporate. Those sections won't be so formal once I get to work on them again - it was a work in progress doing the quotes first, organizing them into the paragraphs, and now I have to personalize it. Hope that helps :) I will be on here for a little while tonight so if you are back on and have any questions let me know!

From: Jena Martin [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 10:27 AMTo: Amy McCormick; Janet CadmanSubject: Re: paper


There were 2 sections of the lesson plan that Janet has to fill in. Other than that, I was confused on the order of the appendix when I looked at the email. The document where they had to draw lines to the circle or cup thing I thought was the pre assessment but it says post assessment. I was going to reference the different papers in my introduction but left that out because I didn't want to write the wrong thing. Do you think I should go back and incorporate that once I know the correct order?Also in the assessment section of the lesson plan...Do you want me to go into detail? I wasn't sure what to do and did not want to reference the wrong paper from the appendix. Just let me know! JenaOn Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Amy McCormick <[email protected]> wrote:Jena, I know you haven't had a chance to send the paper yet, but you asked for us to look over it. As long as it has the stuff on the rubric I am sure it is fine. The introduction is pretty basic, so that should be fine. There is a lot of stuff in the lesson plan, so just make sure you have:

How the findings are incorporated Highlights of the research Explaining the methods and strategies Suggestions for diverse learners That the IWB is used in the lesson (I would hope so!)

If you have all of those sections, then you should be good to go! I should be back on today, but I will be gone until Tuesday and probably won't be back on email until then. Hopefully you will have baby news! Good luck and Merry Christmas! Amy

My revised finalMonday, January 2, 2012 3:16 PMFrom:"Jena Martin" <[email protected]>View contact detailsTo:"Amy McCormick" <[email protected]>, "Janet Cadman" <[email protected]>

Since the introduction comes first, I just labeled the documents starting with Appendix A, per Amy's email about the APA format standards. Not sure if that is how you wanted it or not so I


took your advice and highlighted them in case we need to change things. Amy I hope your mom is doing well. Janet I hope you are on the mend. Been thinking about you both and hoping things are going well. Jena

RE: My revised finalThursday, January 5, 2012 4:54 PMFrom:"Amy McCormick" <[email protected]>View contact detailsTo:"Jena Martin" <[email protected]>, "Janet Cadman" <[email protected]>Cc:"Amy McCormick" <[email protected]>

Jena and Janet, Hi! Sounds good...but you didn't attach it :) However, considering the recent birth, you get a mommy brain pass on that one for sure! I am finally getting to work on it a little. I will have time this weekend - yes I know it is due on the 11th. Don't worry - I will not let you down! I plan on having it put together and sent back to both of you by Saturday evening so you can both proof read it and make sure the appendixes match and the numbers match because I look through them really well, but there are so many specifics in this paper that I would feel much better having both of you look it over too! Thanks :) My mom's surgery went super actually - thank you for asking! I only ended up having to cook a bunch of food for her because she can't lift and head home because otherwise she is doing well. Her blood work is still out of whack, but that isn't anything I can help with and it isn't going to make her drop over, so she is ok on her own :) Janet - I too hope you are recovering well! Happy New Year to you both and I will be in touch soon!Amy


From: Janet Cadman [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:02 AMTo: [email protected]; Amy McCormickCc: Amy McCormickSubject: final... i think

Here is my part... I hope everyone is doing well...Talk to you soon.Janet

RE: final... i thinkThursday, January 5, 2012 5:09 PMFrom:"Amy McCormick" <[email protected]>View contact detailsTo:"Janet Cadman" <[email protected]>

Janet, I think the data charts I made should be in the paper - do you agree? If so, do you know whether they are Tables, Figures, or how to label them? If you have a chance, and you do think we should include them, can you work on that part? If not that is ok - just let me know. Thanks! AmyFrom: Janet Cadman [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:12 PMTo: Amy McCormickSubject: Re: final... i think

Yes I think they should be in the paper... I think they would be tables- what should I do to them?I will be happy to do them tomorrow.Let me know what I should do with themJanet

RE: final... i thinkThursday, January 5, 2012 6:01 PMFrom:


"Amy McCormick" <[email protected]>View contact detailsTo:"Janet Cadman" <[email protected]>

I don't know what to do with them without looking it up in the APA manual. Do you have that? If not I can look it up and do it without a problem. I was fighting with getting the Appendicies in the paper - that made me crabby so I asked you about the tables :)

youngstown state universitypeople.ysu.edu/~jmartin/final/6945_final_paper_with_refle… · web...

Documents